Skip to main content

About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
of them here that we've anticipated as possible defenses. we don't eliminate the explanation or defense if we don't list it here. the question is if it's useful to say that is one of the circumstances that would be appropriate to raise. >> and i think you are both right. actually. i don't think it limits the affirmative defense. i think the problem is some of these are not affirmative. the only factor is a penalty. commissioner hayon. >> they are circumstances but not defenses. >> i don't feel strongly if we want to end it surrounding the case and limiting everything beyond. but i have a different issue. >> okay. >> there seems to be a gap. if we decide to refer the show-cause hearing to one commissioner. we don't say what he or she is supposed to do. if he or she reaches a conclusion that supports the finding of a violation. i think what is contemplated that, that gets reported to the full commission. and the commission debates whether three of the commissioners want to agree with the hearing. but we don't have a provision for what happens with the hearing officer's determination. >> u
defenses. in other words one could say, when i get to the "d" for example, whether the respondent spoke with council and relied on that of the employee. that probably is a grounds for which it becomes difficult to say that there has been a violation. we might decide that they should, that the advice they got was wrong. and that we should issue an order saying that the documents shall be produced. but on the other hand, we might say the employee acted in good faith. he went to the city attorney, and the city attorney said, you don't need to produce them. >> i think by -- we are not trying to eliminate these. these would all be under the heading of what is relevant. they would be part of the relevant circumstances surrounding the case. the question is whether to enumerate some of them here that we've anticipated as possible defenses. we don't eliminate the explanation or defense if we don't list it here. the question is if it's useful to say that is one of the circumstances that would be appropriate to raise. >> and i think you are both right. actually. i don't think it limits the affirma
to bring in defense, part of defense assets. it doesn't just come automatically. it's not their main mission and is a whole program of process that has to be followed in order to bring in the access. we partnered up with the department of emergency management. we did a briefing on what they call defense port civilian authorities. in 2011 we ratcheted it up with a stable top exercise with mass casualty evacuation. in 2012 back in august, we actually had a functional exercise where we set up command posts and we tested interoperable communications techniques and techniques on route clearing for mass debris route clearance. all of that is the lead agency in planning part of the emergency management with ralph and diane. and jill ray croft. it's all made possible by the waterfront department that is run by ann cronenberg. i'd loch for her to come up here and say a few words. (applause) >> thank you all. it's a pleasure to be here today. as louis mentioned, department of emergency management has a huge role in fleet week. what you see on the surface is a fun week. we plan for the entire y
. >> yeah, what happens in a situation where we have the show-cause hearing. the defense is advice of counsel. looking at it, we think that the advice of counsel defense lacks merit. what happens then? >> i think that would be some factual matter for you to determine. >> but if we were to order the document produced and found the defense lacking. they don't turn it over because they did get advice of counsel saying they shouldn't. how do we resolve that? >> well, the ordinance itself, and apart from the remedies we have done here. the ordinance allows that person to go to court to get the city to produce the document. we could not initiate a court action for them. that would have to be their next step. maybe that's the advice you could give to them as a commission. apart from the penalty we have done here, i don't know anything from that forward. you have issued an order saying produce it. and they don't. you know. >> okay. any other views. from the commissioners? on this particular penalty? 2.1-g. any comments? okay. let's take public comment on decision point 2. >> bruce wolf. i
the advice of the city attorney is a defense. it can't be because under the ordinance the city attorney cannot advice any city employee, assist any city employee in -- i could read the language. shall not act as legal for any city employee having custody of any public record for purposes of denying access to the public. but if you want to keep it, it becomes a get-out-of-jail free card. the other thing that is important. i think that the full commission should hear these cases. i think that the public is entitled to that. and the notion of a hearing officer who is unknown and has no real accountability would be involved is contrary to the spirit of this. >> can i ask a question about that. so in the situation where because of timing issues. that's necessarily going to cause potentially are in delay between sunshine task force finding and the commission finding. you think it's worth it for the full commission? >> mr. shaw's case has been sitting over a year. >> could you answer my question, i am curious. we will address mr. shaw's issue tonight. >> okay, i think it's worth the wait to ge
contrary to popular belief. it's usually the eviction defense network and housing rights committees. these are the people on the front line and they know the laws and they understand these issues that are related to rent control laws and this type of thing. so it makes sense. and it would also help, i think, fund their operations and i think there is a need for housing counseling in a city where the rents are so high and the abuses are still present. so i think it's a great situation. i think it's a win-win. >> miss selby. >> i think i didn't understand the question in the first place, because when i answered it i was wondering why are we only authorizing non-profit housing organizations and why not authorize everybody? i don't think i really understood the question as to why specifically non-profit housing organizations? i think if you are going to have restrictions on short-term rentals, there should be a way to be able to make sure that that happens. whether it's through a non-profit housing organization or through another means in the city. then i think you need to be able
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)